Jason Trommetter ([info]jasontromm) wrote in [info]libertarianism,
2005-03-21 10:30:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next
  • Mood: annoyed

Right to Life?

I know this goes against everything I've ever written about the "right to life," but I'm on Michael Schiavo's side. If I was the one lying in the bed in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want my wife to give the order to have the feeding tube removed. My parents would have no right to intervene -- although, I know my Mother would try.

Terri's parents don't have a right to intervene in this case. When he gave his daughter away at her wedding, he ceased to have a say in her medical care. That became Michael's right then. When a couple gets married they are to "leave" and "cleave." Terri left her parents household and created a new household with her husband Michael.

The Florida legislature and Jeb Bush have no right to intervene. It's a family matter, not a matter for public legislation. The Florida Supreme Court was right when they struck down Terri's law.

This is definitely not a matter for the U.S. Congress and courts to get involved in. As a Libertarian, I am personally offended when federal officials try to intervene in family matters. Why are they wasting their time on this? They should be getting down to the business of trimming the federal budget. To all the Congress critters out there... "Leave Michael Schiavo and his family alone, get back to doing your jobs."

Discuss this issue on the LiveJournal Libertarian forums.

View this post on my blog


  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 75 comments

[info]sahm

March 21 2005, 15:36:22 UTC 7 years ago

i agree. no matter what my actual views are on the medical matter (or anyone's medical matters), it's between her and her husband.

he is next of kin, and has been since they married.

[info]eru_illuvatar

March 21 2005, 15:41:25 UTC 7 years ago

As an adamant and unapologetic pro-life conservative, I am in complete agreement with you on this case. I am against both abortion and euthanasia, but this is a case of neither. And I am disgusted with my friends in the pro-life community for effectively kidnapping Terri and making her an unwilling and nonconsensual poster child for the movement. Euthanasia, as I understand it, involves the individual taking the initiative to end their own life, but nature has determined that Terri should have already died. And in the event the individual becomes incapable of making the decision, it befalls her next of kin -- i.e., her husband.

I cannot blame Terri's parents for wanting to keep their daughter alive. That is the reaction of every good parent -- to protect his child no matter what. As you rightly pointed out, however, they have no legal standing for their battle, and now Congress has intervened and are using this family's private grief and tragedy as a political soapbox. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, as should my friends in the pro-life community.

[info]ericrobertwhite

March 21 2005, 15:49:36 UTC 7 years ago

"This is definitely not a matter for the U.S. Congress and courts to get involved in."

Agreed.

[info]cmdrbean

March 21 2005, 21:21:17 UTC 7 years ago

*points to your icon*

That was a good essay. I just read it last night, and hope to get to the responses today.

[info]nonhuman

March 21 2005, 15:50:39 UTC 7 years ago

I would be on the husband's side except for the method being used to kill her. A slow, month long process of dehydration is not what I would consider a compassionate way to kill someone.

Give her a shot of adrenaline to stop her heart, smother her, shoot her in the head, I don't care. Any of those would be a better way to die.

[info]stacyinthecity

March 21 2005, 15:53:35 UTC 7 years ago

Aha. Finally someone who agrees with me.

[info]coppertarantula

March 21 2005, 16:08:11 UTC 7 years ago

I agree

[info]cluebyfour

March 21 2005, 16:10:33 UTC 7 years ago

The problem with active forms of euthanasia is that they're illegal, and probably always will be given the country's general opinion of such methods.

It has also been reported that Terri Schiavo will likely slip into a coma and not feel a thing as death nears.

It still doesn't seem particularly compassionate. But even if there was no question about Terri's wishes in this situation, it would still be the only option available.

[info]sahm

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wulfgyr

March 21 2005, 17:47:39 UTC 7 years ago

I've told my wife that if I'm ever brain-dead not to just pull the plug, but to throw me out of an airplane at 20,000 feet... chained firmly to Bill Gates and Michael Moore. It's how I want to die.

[info]samantha543

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]shadowboxer524

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]wulfgyr

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]benkilpatrick

March 21 2005, 17:53:00 UTC 7 years ago

All of those ways are illegal.

[info]nekomouser

March 21 2005, 19:26:22 UTC 7 years ago

I would be on the husband's side except for the method being used to kill her.

Don't forget, though, the husband has no say in that. That is the only legal way to do it. I'm sure if he could, he'd have it done with a shot to the arm and over in 30 seconds. As I've said before, serial killers get a more dignified death at the hands of the state than this citizen. If it is inhumane for the state to actively kill a prisoner by starvation, how is it humane to passively allow a citizen to die by the same means once the state has allowed them to die?
I am on his side, but condemn the state's unwillingness to allow her to die any other way. They are two separate stances.

[info]happy_ogre

March 26 2005, 04:41:51 UTC 7 years ago

Its not dehydration that she is being killed by. That would only take a couple of days. They are starving her to death.

[info]perich

March 21 2005, 16:23:56 UTC 7 years ago

Yeah, come on. Let the man do the humane thing and dehydrate his wife. Let him starve her when she's too unconscious to fight back, because it's no longer convenient to keep the woman he promised to support "in sickness and in health, till death do us part" alive.

The nerve.

(And the fact that this puts me on the side of the right-to-lifers is a sickmaking irony if ever there were one)

[info]superconnected

March 21 2005, 16:29:33 UTC 7 years ago

You are aware that she hasn't had food or water in her stomach since before the accident, right?

I agree that the more humane thing would be a powerful dose of morphine, but the fact remains that if she really is brain dead (and everyone who wants to let her die does), she isn't going to suffer because she's already gone.

[info]perich

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]benkilpatrick

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]cluebyfour

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]perich

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]nekomouser

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]montecristo

March 21 2005, 17:12:08 UTC 7 years ago

I have a better idea.

Maybe the Congress critters should all just take a really long vacation.

[info]majisto

March 21 2005, 23:25:00 UTC 7 years ago

Re: I have a better idea.

or just give some hell-bent middle eastern dictator a small nuke and get rid of DC

[info]peachik

March 21 2005, 17:17:14 UTC 7 years ago

I believe the husband should have the right to withdraw and extricate himself entirely from his wife. He shouldn't be forced to pay for her medical care. I don't see why he should have the ability to stop someone else from taking responsibility for the woman's care.

As long as someone wants to sustain her on their own dime I don't see why the state of Florida, the Federal government, or any of us should give two shits.

[info]crackmonkeyjr

March 21 2005, 17:31:44 UTC 7 years ago

Assuming you believe him, as now multiple courts have, the husband's issue is not that he doesn't want to be responsible for his wife, but rather that he thinks that being responsible for his wife means letting her die and preventing other people from stopping her from dying.

[info]peachik

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]crackmonkeyjr

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jasontromm

March 21 2005, 18:45:20 UTC 7 years ago

The courts have already ruled that Michael can't transfer guardianship of Terry to someone else. There's no precedence for that in the law.

[info]ericthemage

March 21 2005, 17:45:38 UTC 7 years ago

I'm really surprised that I have not heard anyone raise the issue of their marriage. It still is "til death do us part", right? So why are they defending him when he started a new family while his wife is still alive?

[info]benkilpatrick

March 21 2005, 17:56:09 UTC 7 years ago

His wife is no longer alive in any meaningful sense of the word.

[info]ericthemage

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]benkilpatrick

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]nelliebelle

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ericthemage

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]nelliebelle

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]nekomouser

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jasontromm

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]zarex

March 21 2005, 18:08:07 UTC 7 years ago

I agree, and I'm also surprised that this hasn't been brought up earlier.

He's really a husband in name only - I'm inclined to think that once he left her for another woman, and especially after starting another family, that he forfeited any claim to "custody". An honorable man would have politely ceded to her parents to make the decision.

[ Personally, I think they should euthanize her properly, but I don't think that is the husband's decision to make anymore. ]

[info]crackmonkeyjr

March 21 2005, 18:35:31 UTC 7 years ago

While I think that that is relevant, I don't think that it disqualifies him from making this decision. It is entirely possible that Michael Schiavo still deeply loves Terri Schiavo and is seeking to do what is best for her, but at the same time has looked for another person to fulfill the areas of his life which Terri has been unable to fulfill for the past 15 years.

Also, this is not just a matter of spousal privilege. Michael does not get to pick whichever fate he finds most appealing for Terri, he must pick the fate which he believes Terri would want. Your spouse is the default decision maker here because, unlike your parents, you pick your spouse. Spousal relationships also are seen as more intimate than parent-child relationships. There is no parent-child privilege in court, but there is a spousal privilege. It is expected that you will discuss the most private aspects of your life with your spouse, not necessarily your parents and so your spouse is in the best position to know whether you would want to be kept alive or let to die. This reason would make me say that even if Michael and Terri became divorced after she slipped into a persistent vegetative state, Michael may still be preferable to Terri's parents as a surrogut decision maker.

Now as I said, the fact that Michael now has a girlfriend who is now also the mother of his children is worth considering. Perhaps this new relationship, or perhaps an interest in life insurance money or settlement money, have made it so Michael no longer can be counted on to tell us what Terri would want. The thing is, this issue has already been raised and answered in court. The court found that despite these factors, Michael is in the best position to determine what Terri would want to be done. You may disagree with the court (although I would ask that you actually read the court's decisions on the matter before you disagree with them), but that doesn't change the fact that we live in a system where this sort of determination is left up to courts, not Jeb Bush, George Bush, Congress or the editorial staff of NRO, and the courts have already made their determination.

[info]ericthemage

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]crackmonkeyjr

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gentlemaitresse

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]crackmonkeyjr

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gentlemaitresse

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]crackmonkeyjr

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]rivka

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gentlemaitresse

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]cluebyfour

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gentlemaitresse

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]cluebyfour

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gentlemaitresse

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jasontromm

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]napoleonofcrime

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]rivka

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jasontromm

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]pyran

March 21 2005, 18:44:54 UTC 7 years ago

I actually don't see the relevance in this argument. If she slipped into a coma last week, or even a year or two ago, that would be one thing, but she's been in her current state for 15 years. I think it would be fair to say that at this point Michael Schiavo has moved on with his life but is determined to honor Terri's wishes in this matter. In that, he's been entirely consistent to the point of refusing offers of millions of dollars to turn over legal custody of the decision.

He's allowed to move on, but I applaud him for his tenacity. To the best of anyone's knowledge, Terri Schiavo's wishes were that she didn't want to live in the state she's been forced to live in for 15 years. Rather than demonizing him because he's moved on emotionally with his life, I think he's showing a lot of respect for his wife in that he's still willing to see this through despite the personal attacks, demonization, and outright bribery attempts.

[info]ericthemage

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]nekomouser

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]xochitl

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ericthemage

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]xochitl

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]pyran

7 years ago

  • Loading...
...and 6 more comments... from [info]ericthemage, [info]gentlemaitresse, [info]nekomouser… Expand

[info]gentlemaitresse

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]pyran

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]xochitl

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]godsauce

7 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]sosiouxme

March 22 2005, 02:02:04 UTC 7 years ago

hm, perhaps we'd be better off if they wasted their time on this sort of crap rather than ramming through pork. all the same, the idea that congress could get involved in this affair is just appalling to me.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…